MOSCOW, June 14 (RAPSI) - A senior covert paramilitary officer for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has prepared a claim against his employer seeking to compel the agency’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to complete a war crimes investigation presently pending against the claimant, according to court documents published by Foreign Policy Thursday.

The unnamed plaintiff claims in the court filing to have carried out various assignments for the CIA while deployed overseas between 2003 and 2011, including “offensive operations against individuals designated or viewed as enemies of the United States.”

In the aftermath of one specific overseas assignment, the plaintiff was accused alongside other CIA employees of having participated in, committed, and/or possessed information about war crimes.

The CIA OIG launched an investigation into the matter sometime between 2010 and 2011. A criminal inquiry was then launched by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), which ultimately chose to close the case, declining to prosecute sometime between 2011 and 2012.

In the complaint, the plaintiff claims that physical and electronic surveillance was initiated against him during the course of the CIA’s internal investigation: “The surveillance included harassment tactics undertaken by local law enforcement who were cooperating with the CIA. Other tactics involved corruption of electronic devices such as computers and cell phones. The Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation into CIA’s activities involving [the plaintiff].”

In an effort to bring the investigation to its end, the plaintiff claims to have offered to be interviewed by the CIA OIG, but was never taken up on his offer.

The claim asserts that sometime between the summer and fall of 2012 a CIA OIG attorney told the plaintiff’s attorney that he had urged the investigation to be closed, explaining that there was no reason to keep it going. Accordingly, the plaintiff states based on information and belief that the CIA OIG understands that there is a lack of evidence to support the allegations levied against the plaintiff, “and is purposefully refusing to administratively close its investigation in order to discredit or otherwise cause harm to his career.”

Citing the court’s authority under US federal law to compel unreasonably delayed agency action, the plaintiff moved accordingly.